CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-EXO-19-009 ; CERN-EP-2023-003
A search for new physics in central exclusive production using the missing mass technique with the CMS detector and the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer
Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 827
Abstract: A generic search is presented for the associated production of a Z boson or a photon with an additional unspecified massive particle X, $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} +\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $, in proton-tagged events from proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV, recorded in 2017 with the CMS detector and the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer. The missing mass spectrum is analysed in the 600-1600 GeV range and a fit is performed to search for possible deviations from the background expectation. No significant excess in data with respect to the background predictions has been observed. Model-independent upper limits on the visible production cross section of $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} +\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ are set.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Schematic diagram of the photon-photon production of a Z boson or a photon with an additional, unknown particle X, giving rise to $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} = m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The production mechanism does not have to proceed through photon exchange. Other colourless exchange mechanisms (e.g. double pomeron [11]) are also allowed. For high-mass central exclusive production, electroweak processes are expected to dominate, and QCD-based colourless exchanges are expected to be suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Comparison of the $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ shapes for the simulated $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X} $ signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as described in the text, for a generated $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $ mass of 1000 GeV. A fiducial cross section of 1 pb is used to normalize the simulation. From left to right and top to bottom, the distributions are shown for the different proton reconstruction categories: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $).

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Comparison of the $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ shapes for the simulated $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X} $ signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as described in the text, for a generated $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $ mass of 1000 GeV. A fiducial cross section of 1 pb is used to normalize the simulation. From left to right and top to bottom, the distributions are shown for the different proton reconstruction categories: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $).

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Comparison of the $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ shapes for the simulated $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X} $ signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as described in the text, for a generated $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $ mass of 1000 GeV. A fiducial cross section of 1 pb is used to normalize the simulation. From left to right and top to bottom, the distributions are shown for the different proton reconstruction categories: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $).

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Comparison of the $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ shapes for the simulated $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X} $ signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as described in the text, for a generated $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $ mass of 1000 GeV. A fiducial cross section of 1 pb is used to normalize the simulation. From left to right and top to bottom, the distributions are shown for the different proton reconstruction categories: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $).

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Comparison of the $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ shapes for the simulated $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X} $ signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as described in the text, for a generated $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $ mass of 1000 GeV. A fiducial cross section of 1 pb is used to normalize the simulation. From left to right and top to bottom, the distributions are shown for the different proton reconstruction categories: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $).

png pdf
Figure 3:
Product of the acceptance and the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown in the left panel display the different final states, while the ones in the right panel show the contributions from the different proton reconstruction categories in the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ analysis: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $). The definitions of the fiducial region and of the signal model used to estimate the acceptance are provided in the text.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Product of the acceptance and the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown in the left panel display the different final states, while the ones in the right panel show the contributions from the different proton reconstruction categories in the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ analysis: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $). The definitions of the fiducial region and of the signal model used to estimate the acceptance are provided in the text.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Product of the acceptance and the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown in the left panel display the different final states, while the ones in the right panel show the contributions from the different proton reconstruction categories in the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ analysis: multi($ +z $)-multi($ -z $), multi($ +z $)-single($ -z $), single($ +z $)-multi($ -z $) and single($ +z $)-single($ -z $). The definitions of the fiducial region and of the signal model used to estimate the acceptance are provided in the text.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-e:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-f:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-g:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-h:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 4-i:
Distributions of the reconstructed proton $ \xi $ in the negative arm (left), positive arm (middle), and the corresponding di-proton rapidity (right) from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events are compared to data, in the upper panels in each plot. Processes other than the ones displayed in the figures are estimated to have negligible residual contributions. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The hatched band illustrates the statistical uncertainty of the background model. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mu\mu $, and photon final states are shown from top to bottom. The $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mu\mu $ events are displayed without the Z boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ requirement. For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $, normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Validation of the background modelling method, using the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ control sample. Selected $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events are mixed with protons from $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{Z}) < $ 10 GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events. The proton $ \xi $ distributions for both CT-PPS arms (upper row), those of the di-proton invariant mass (lower left), and of $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ (lower right) are shown. The lower panel in each plot displays the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The gray uncertainty band around the background prediction represents the contribution from the limited sample size. The red uncertainty band represents the effect of adding in quadrature the differences with the alternative mixing approaches described in the text.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Validation of the background modelling method, using the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ control sample. Selected $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events are mixed with protons from $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{Z}) < $ 10 GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events. The proton $ \xi $ distributions for both CT-PPS arms (upper row), those of the di-proton invariant mass (lower left), and of $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ (lower right) are shown. The lower panel in each plot displays the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The gray uncertainty band around the background prediction represents the contribution from the limited sample size. The red uncertainty band represents the effect of adding in quadrature the differences with the alternative mixing approaches described in the text.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Validation of the background modelling method, using the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ control sample. Selected $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events are mixed with protons from $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{Z}) < $ 10 GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events. The proton $ \xi $ distributions for both CT-PPS arms (upper row), those of the di-proton invariant mass (lower left), and of $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ (lower right) are shown. The lower panel in each plot displays the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The gray uncertainty band around the background prediction represents the contribution from the limited sample size. The red uncertainty band represents the effect of adding in quadrature the differences with the alternative mixing approaches described in the text.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Validation of the background modelling method, using the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ control sample. Selected $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events are mixed with protons from $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{Z}) < $ 10 GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events. The proton $ \xi $ distributions for both CT-PPS arms (upper row), those of the di-proton invariant mass (lower left), and of $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ (lower right) are shown. The lower panel in each plot displays the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The gray uncertainty band around the background prediction represents the contribution from the limited sample size. The red uncertainty band represents the effect of adding in quadrature the differences with the alternative mixing approaches described in the text.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Validation of the background modelling method, using the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ control sample. Selected $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events are mixed with protons from $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{Z}) < $ 10 GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ events. The proton $ \xi $ distributions for both CT-PPS arms (upper row), those of the di-proton invariant mass (lower left), and of $ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ (lower right) are shown. The lower panel in each plot displays the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The gray uncertainty band around the background prediction represents the contribution from the limited sample size. The red uncertainty band represents the effect of adding in quadrature the differences with the alternative mixing approaches described in the text.

png pdf
Figure 6:
$ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ distributions in the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ final state. The distributions are shown for protons reconstructed with (from left to right) the multi-multi, multi-single, single-multi and single-single methods, respectively. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The expectations for a signal with $ m_{\mathrm{X}} = $ 1000 GeV are superimposed and normalised to 1 pb.

png pdf
Figure 7:
$ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ distributions in the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final state. The distributions are shown for protons reconstructed with (from left to right) the multi-multi, multi-single, single-multi and single-single methods, respectively. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The expectations for a signal with $ m_{\mathrm{X}} = $ 1000 GeV are superimposed and normalised to 1 pb.

png pdf
Figure 8:
$ m_{\mathrm{miss}} $ distributions in the $ \gamma $ final state. The distributions are shown for protons reconstructed with (from left to right) the multi-multi, multi-single, single-multi and single-single methods, respectively. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The lower panels display the ratio between the data and the background model, with the arrows indicating values lying outside the displayed range. The expectations for a signal with $ m_{\mathrm{X}} = $ 1000 GeV are superimposed and normalised to 10 pb.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Upper limits on the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the dark green and light yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The upper plots correspond to the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final states, while the lower plots correspond to the combined Z and $ \gamma $ analyses.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Upper limits on the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the dark green and light yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The upper plots correspond to the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final states, while the lower plots correspond to the combined Z and $ \gamma $ analyses.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Upper limits on the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the dark green and light yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The upper plots correspond to the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final states, while the lower plots correspond to the combined Z and $ \gamma $ analyses.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Upper limits on the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the dark green and light yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The upper plots correspond to the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final states, while the lower plots correspond to the combined Z and $ \gamma $ analyses.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Upper limits on the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ cross section at 95% CL, as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{X}} $. The 68 and 95% central intervals of the expected limits are represented by the dark green and light yellow bands, respectively, while the observed limit is superimposed as a curve. The upper plots correspond to the $ \mathrm{Z}\to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ final states, while the lower plots correspond to the combined Z and $ \gamma $ analyses.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Combined CMS+CT-PPS fiducial volume selection criteria in the Z and $ \gamma $ analyses. The leading- and subleading-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ leptons, where $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ is transverse momentum, are labelled as $ \ell_1 $ and $ \ell_2 $, respectively. The Z boson mass is noted as $ m_{\mathrm{Z}} $.
Summary
A search is presented for anomalous central exclusive $ \mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ production using proton-proton (pp) data samples corresponding to an integrated luminosity up to 37.2 fb$^{-1}$ recorded in 2017 by the CMS detector and the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer (CT-PPS). A hypothetical X resonance is searched for in the mass region between 0.6 and 1.6 TeV, with selections optimised for the best expected significance. Benefitting from the excellent mass resolution of 2% offered by the combination of the CMS central detector and CT-PPS, for the first time at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the missing mass distribution is used to perform a model-independent search. Upper limits on the visible cross section of the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p} \mathrm{Z}/\gamma+\mathrm{X} $ process are set in a fiducial volume, using a generic model, in the absence of significant deviations in data with respect to the background predictions. Upper limits in the 0.025-0.089 pb range are obtained for $ \sigma(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{X}) $ and 0.47-1.75 pb for $ \sigma(\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\gamma\mathrm{X}) $. With these results we demonstrate the feasibility of the missing mass approach for searches at the LHC.
References
1 ATLAS Collaboration A strategy for a general search for new phenomena using data-derived signal regions and its application within the ATLAS experiment EPJC 79 (2019) 120 1807.07447
2 CMS Collaboration MUSiC: a model-unspecific search for new physics in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV EPJC 81 (2021) 629 CMS-EXO-19-008
2010.02984
3 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new phenomena in three- or four-lepton events in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {TeV} $ with the ATLAS detector PLB 824 (2022) 136832 2107.00404
4 G. Karagiorgi et al. Machine learning in the search for new fundamental physics 2112.03769
5 W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler Effective lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation NPB 268 (1986) 621
6 B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek Dimension-six terms in the standard model lagrangian JHEP 10 (2010) 085 1008.4884
7 J. Ellis et al. Top, Higgs, diboson and electroweak fit to the standard model effective field theory JHEP 04 (2021) 279 2012.02779
8 SMEFiT Collaboration Combined SMEFT interpretation of higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC JHEP 11 (2021) 089 2105.00006
9 E. Chapon, C. Royon, and O. Kepka Anomalous quartic WW$ \gamma\gamma $, ZZ$ \gamma\gamma $, and trilinear WW$ \gamma $ couplings in two-photon processes at high luminosity at the LHC PRD 81 (2010) 074003 0912.5161
10 V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin Prospects for new physics observations in diffractive processes at the LHC and Tevatron EPJC 23 (2002) 311 hep-ph/0111078
11 P. D. B. Collins An Introduction to Regge Theory and High-Energy Physics Cambridge Univ. Press, . , ISBN~978-0-521-1-8, 2009
link
12 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
13 CMS and TOTEM Collaborations CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer Technical Report CERN-LHCC-2014-021, TOTEM-TDR-003, CMS-TDR-13, 2014
14 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
15 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
16 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
17 TOTEM Collaboration The TOTEM experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider JINST 3 (2008) S08007
18 CMS and TOTEM Collaboration Proton reconstruction with the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer Submitted to JINST, 2022 2210.05854
19 CMS Collaboration Proton reconstruction with the precision proton spectrometer (PPS) in run 2 CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-047, CERN, 2020
CDS
20 CMS Collaboration Efficiency of the Si-strips sensors used in the precision proton spectrometer: radiation damage CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2019-035, CERN, 2019
CDS
21 CMS Collaboration Efficiency of the pixel sensors used in the precision proton spectrometer: radiation damage CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2019-036, CERN, 2019
CDS
22 CMS and TOTEM Collaborations Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer JHEP 07 (2018) 153 1803.04496
23 V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin, and V. G. Serbo The two photon particle production mechanism. Physical problems. Applications. Equivalent photon approximation Phys. Rept. 15 (1975) 181
24 S. Agostinelli et al. Geant4 - a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
25 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
26 J. Alwall et al. Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions EPJC 53 (2008) 473 0706.2569
27 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
28 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi A positive-weight next-to-leading-order monte carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
29 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
30 M. Arneodo and M. Diehl Diffraction for non-believers HERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the Implications of HERA and LHC Physics, CERN, 2004 hep-ph/0511047
31 B. E. Cox and J. R. Forshaw POMWIG: HERWIG for diffractive interactions Comput. Phys. Commun. 144 (2002) 104 hep-ph/0010303
32 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
33 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
34 CMS Collaboration Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P0 CMS-MUO-17-001
1912.03516
35 L. Moneta et al. The RooStats project 13$^\text{th}$ International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT). SISSA, 2010 1009.1003
36 B. Todd, L. Ponce, A. Apollonio, and D. J. Walsh LHC availability 2017: technical stop 2 to end of standard proton physics Accelerators and Technology Sector Notes CERN-ACC-NOTE-2017-0062, CERN, 2017
37 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2018
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
38 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219
39 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
40 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the CL$ _{\rm s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
41 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011 Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, 2011
42 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
43 E. Gross and O. Vitells Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics EPJC 70 (2010) 525 1005.1891
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN